Blame '60s for sex-abuse scandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chickamauga
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GreenJeans said:
The culture did not condone catch and release. Only some people believed that.
Click to expand...
In the case of Masachusettes, it was the former Governor which is probably why he never became president. It’s ironic that Massachusetttes became the epicenter of this scandal.
 
Nohome said:
By all means, but don’t ever forget and never let your gaurd down. My children will never be left alone with any member of the clergy.

Nohome
Click to expand...
In June 2005 the Dallas Morning News did a series on how the bishops in South America and Australia were still shuffling people around after the Boston scandal hit the world news. They even moved one visiting priest out of New York after a warrant was issued. After a warrant was issued in Australia they put another in charge of a childrens program in Samoa. The bishops claimed they didn’t know where he was. The News told the Samoan authorities and Samoa kicked him out. Samoan authorities said the Church authorities lied about his background. He is now in jail in Australia. Is it finished, or still happening?
 
Not to denigrate the tragedies that happened, nohome, but the majority of children would be safer around a clergy member than their own parents–as the majority of child abuse is perpetrated on children by their own parents, or by family members or other ‘home’ contacts.

To think that you can ‘keep your child safe’ because it’s only the big bad Catholic church and its priests who are responsible for child sexual abuse is to put your head in the sand and actually in the long run expose your child, and others, to even greater danger.

It isn’t the ‘celibacy requirement’ that causes child sex abuse. It isn’t the ‘authority’ of the priest, it isn’t even ‘the 60s’, or ‘religion’. . .it is, purely and simply, an issue of control and power that can happen to any person, in any setting. It happens ‘more’ in the home simply because most children spend more ‘unsupervised’ time at their home.

But we don’t want to think that ‘we’ can be responsible. Far easier to blame ‘some old men in a foreign country’ and some ‘sex starved clergy’, than have to look at other causes, or even for the real ‘roots’.

And kudos to the poster (s) above who correctly noted that if there is to be any ‘sharing’ of onus and blame, it rests on the medical profession, who themselves assured the bishops and even the priests involved that they ‘could be cured’ and ‘were safe’.

Next time you go to the doctor and he tells you to start taking blood pressure medication, feel free to ignore him and do what you want, because you don’t feel anything wrong. That’s basically the advice you’re saying the bishops should have followed–that they should somehow ignore the testimony of experts in a field, and be able to second-guess and mindread and make a totally different, correct diagnosis the medical profession did not.

Yep, somehow those bishops should have had their MD credentials and, in the teeth of recognized medical technology and expertise, been able, decades in advance, to see that the recognized treatment didn’t work.

The Holy Spirit guides the church from teaching error. She does not ‘keep’ individuals in it from committing error. These priests knew what they did was wrong; but they may not have known that the doctor who assured them they were cured was ‘wrong’ at the time they assured their bishop that, according to Doctor X, they were ‘safe’ to go someplace else.

Remarkably few bishops–if ANY!-- actually ‘knew’ 100% for sure that the priest they were sending to Upper Eastfield, Iowa was GOING to abuse again. So long as they had been told Fr. Z was ‘cured’, their obligation AS CHRISTIANS was not to ‘second guess’ the medical profession or somehow safeguard against any possible scenario that could develop (no one has yet done so for anything else, abuse included), but to (as Christ did) send Fr. Z off, having had all that could be done for him by medicine and by prayer, with “Go and sin no more”. Not, “I don’t care what the doctor says, you’re a sicko, God will NOT forgive you, and I cast you out forever, though once you are ‘gone’ there is no way I can ensure you don’t change your name or just walk out onto the highway and rape, torture and murder. At least you won’t be a priest–although you’ll be an ex-priest and they’ll still blame us for letting you in in the first place”.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Not to denigrate the tragedies that happened, nohome, but the majority of children would be safer around a clergy member than their own parents–as the majority of child abuse is perpetrated on children by their own parents, or by family members or other ‘home’ contacts.

To think that you can ‘keep your child safe’ because it’s only the big bad Catholic church and its priests who are responsible for child sexual abuse is to put your head in the sand and actually in the long run expose your child, and others, to even greater danger.

It isn’t the ‘celibacy requirement’ that causes child sex abuse. It isn’t the ‘authority’ of the priest, it isn’t even ‘the 60s’, or ‘religion’. . .it is, purely and simply, an issue of control and power that can happen to any person, in any setting. It happens ‘more’ in the home simply because most children spend more ‘unsupervised’ time at their home.

But we don’t want to think that ‘we’ can be responsible. Far easier to blame ‘some old men in a foreign country’ and some ‘sex starved clergy’, than have to look at other causes, or even for the real ‘roots’.

And kudos to the poster (s) above who correctly noted that if there is to be any ‘sharing’ of onus and blame, it rests on the medical profession, who themselves assured the bishops and even the priests involved that they ‘could be cured’ and ‘were safe’.

Next time you go to the doctor and he tells you to start taking blood pressure medication, feel free to ignore him and do what you want, because you don’t feel anything wrong. That’s basically the advice you’re saying the bishops should have followed–that they should somehow ignore the testimony of experts in a field, and be able to second-guess and mindread and make a totally different, correct diagnosis the medical profession did not.

Yep, somehow those bishops should have had their MD credentials and, in the teeth of recognized medical technology and expertise, been able, decades in advance, to see that the recognized treatment didn’t work.

The Holy Spirit guides the church from teaching error. She does not ‘keep’ individuals in it from committing error. These priests knew what they did was wrong; but they may not have known that the doctor who assured them they were cured was ‘wrong’ at the time they assured their bishop that, according to Doctor X, they were ‘safe’ to go someplace else.

Remarkably few bishops–if ANY!-- actually ‘knew’ 100% for sure that the priest they were sending to Upper Eastfield, Iowa was GOING to abuse again. So long as they had been told Fr. Z was ‘cured’, their obligation AS CHRISTIANS was not to ‘second guess’ the medical profession or somehow safeguard against any possible scenario that could develop (no one has yet done so for anything else, abuse included), but to (as Christ did) send Fr. Z off, having had all that could be done for him by medicine and by prayer, with “Go and sin no more”. Not, “I don’t care what the doctor says, you’re a sicko, God will NOT forgive you, and I cast you out forever, though once you are ‘gone’ there is no way I can ensure you don’t change your name or just walk out onto the highway and rape, torture and murder. At least you won’t be a priest–although you’ll be an ex-priest and they’ll still blame us for letting you in in the first place”.
Click to expand...
The police and courts second guessed the medical profesison all the time. All the bishop had to do was call the cops just like anyone would do if they saw their neighbor abusing a kid.
 
The police and courts second guessed the medical profesison all the time. All the bishop had to do was call the cops just like anyone would do if they saw their neighbor abusing a kid.
Click to expand...
Um, no. You completely ignored everything I said, made an **unsupported assertion **regarding others, and implied that bishops–and of course, Catholics who do not jump to agree with your assertions–were and are stupid at best, criminals at worst.

Would you like to address some of the points made in the post?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Um, no. You completely ignored everything I said, made an **unsupported assertion **regarding others, and implied that bishops–and of course, Catholics who do not jump to agree with your assertions–were and are stupid at best, criminals at worst.

Would you like to address some of the points made in the post?
Click to expand...
I did ignore a lot you said. All we have to do is compare the percentage of molesters caught by police who were jailed compared to the percent of priests caught by bishops who were jailed. I am always amazed at the low standards to which people hold bishops compared to the high standards they demand of the rest of us. That shows disrespect for the bishops.
 
GreenJeans said:
I did ignore a lot you said. All we have to do is compare the percentage of molesters caught by police who were jailed compared to the percent of priests caught by bishops who were jailed. I am always amazed at the low standards to which people hold bishops compared to the high standards they demand of the rest of us. That shows disrespect for the bishops.
Click to expand...
Your post makes the assumption that a bishop’s job is the same as a policemen. A policeman’s job is to put criminals in jail. I don’t know when that became a job description for the bishop. So, to observe a difference would only validate that they have different ‘jobs’, much different ‘jobs’.

Dan
 
Dan_Grelinger said:
Your post makes the assumption that a bishop’s job is the same as a policemen. A policeman’s job is to put criminals in jail. I don’t know when that became a job description for the bishop. So, to observe a difference would only validate that they have different ‘jobs’, much different ‘jobs’.

Dan
Click to expand...
I include bishops in the set of responsible citizens with the rest of us. I think it’s my job to report molesters to the police. I expect no less of anyone else. That includes bishops.
 
GreenJeans said:
I did ignore a lot you said. All we have to do is compare the percentage of molesters caught by police who were jailed compared to the percent of priests caught by bishops who were jailed. I am always amazed at the low standards to which people hold bishops compared to the high standards they demand of the rest of us. That shows disrespect for the bishops.
Click to expand...
So, what are the numbers?
 
GreenJeans said:
I include bishops in the set of responsible citizens with the rest of us. I think it’s my job to report molesters to the police. I expect no less of anyone else. That includes bishops.
Click to expand...
At least you admitted that you were forcing your expectations onto the bishops.

Dan
 
GreenJeans said:
Priests turned in by bishops: 0
Prisoners: thousands
Click to expand...
Now it my turn! 🙂

Prove it! I say your full of it! Now, what is your well reasoned response? “Cause I just know.”? Yeah, you never accept that from others do you? Why don’t you give us the same level of proof that you demand of others? Would this not be putting the Golden Rule into practice? Or is that another thing you know not to be true, but have nothing to offer in its place?

(I now apologize for any hurt that I have caused. It just seemed that you had so much fun posting in this way, that I would try it. I guess it does not work for me the same that it does for you, it did not make me feel any better. I withdraw my assertions and my questions.)

Dan
 
GreenJeans, I question both your assumptions and your conclusions. Would you care to offer any viable, verifiable data other than blanket generalizations, unsupported assertions, and even your frank acknowledgement that you ‘ignore’ anything a poster says if it doesn’t ‘jibe’ with whatever you ‘think’ is right?
 
Dan_Grelinger said:
Now it my turn! 🙂

Prove it! I say your full of it! Now, what is your well reasoned response? “Cause I just know.”? Yeah, you never accept that from others do you? Why don’t you give us the same level of proof that you demand of others? Would this not be putting the Golden Rule into practice? Or is that another thing you know not to be true, but have nothing to offer in its place?

(I now apologize for any hurt that I have caused. It just seemed that you had so much fun posting in this way, that I would try it. I guess it does not work for me the same that it does for you, it did not make me feel any better. I withdraw my assertions and my questions.)

Dan
Click to expand...
Are you taking the position that bishops turned priests over the police when they learned the priests had molested kids? You earlier observed this was not their job. I am content to leave you with that belief.

Are you further taking the position that the police and courts did not lock up molesters during the same period? I am also content to leave you with that belief.

Sometimes loyalty to an organization demands a bit of delusion.

A more effectve response would be to highlight the few cases where priests are rotting in jail for molestations made possible by their bishops’ silence. One could further say the bishop contributed to the jailing by his testimony in court. That would invalidate my response that zero priests are in the can.

Derision is rarely effectively applied with a club. It’s a subtler art.

But, no, my feelings are not hurt. In fact as I read the first few lines I hoped someone had been stirred to life.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
GreenJeans, I question both your assumptions and your conclusions. Would you care to offer any viable, verifiable data other than blanket generalizations, unsupported assertions, and even your frank acknowledgement that you ‘ignore’ anything a poster says if it doesn’t ‘jibe’ with whatever you ‘think’ is right?
Click to expand...
Please. I don’t ignore anything a poster says if I don’t agree. I think my challenges to many posters demonstrate that.

I will respond to you as I did to Dan. I am content to leave you in your belief that priests were jailed bacause bishops turned them in to the police. I am content to leave you with your belief that the bishops cooperated with the police and nipped the problem in the bud. I am content to leave you with your belief that it was the couragous actions of bishops in turning priests over to the police that avoided what could have become a major scandal.
 
GreenJeans said:
Are you taking the position that bishops turned priests over the police when they learned the priests had molested kids? You earlier observed this was not their job. I am content to leave you with that belief.

Are you further taking the position that the police and courts did not lock up molesters during the same period? I am also content to leave you with that belief.

Sometimes loyalty to an organization demands a bit of delusion.

A more effectve response would be to highlight the few cases where priests are rotting in jail for molestations made possible by their bishops’ silence. One could further say the bishop contributed to the jailing by his testimony in court. That would invalidate my response that zero priests are in the can.

Derision is rarely effectively applied with a club. It’s a subtler art.

But, no, my feelings are not hurt. In fact as I read the first few lines I hoped someone had been stirred to life.
Click to expand...
I don’t expect that you, the Bishop or anyone else can call tghe police and say, “I hear Joe is a pervert, can you go and pick him up.” There is due process and police don’t drop everything for 10 year old accusations (I know they do on Cold Case).

They are priest who have ended up in jail. I guess you’ve never heard of Geoghan the Massachusettes priest sent to prison and eventually killed in prison or Paul Shanely. Cardinal Law wasn’t called to testify in either case but why should he have been. He had no direct evidence. Even the knowledge that the Bishops had was shakey. Paul Shanely never did confess to molesting anyone. Often in these cases, the accused priest will deny the charges but a psych eval reveals an attraction to boys. These evals are confidential and the Bishops aren’t at liberty to share them with the police or anyone else.

The primary witness in any of these cases are the victim or eye witnesses, not the Bishop who learns of this information second and third hand. Therefore, the primary repsonsibility for alerting authorities is the victim or the parents. Shocking I know.

Of course most of these case involved teenage males who didn’t come forward with their allegations for several years. Most of these case involved fondling. What does a Bishop do with an allegation about father Joe grabbing my a** and making sexually suggestive comments 10 years ago. Take your 25 year old victim to CPS? It’s not surprising that the Bishops decided to take the therapy route.

There are some cases where Bishops did cover up. But other Bishops have done the right thing.
 
Gabriel_Gale said:
I don’t expect that you, the Bishop or anyone else can call tghe police and say, “I hear Joe is a pervert, can you go and pick him up.” There is due process and police don’t drop everything for 10 year old accusations (I know they do on Cold Case).

They are priest who have ended up in jail. I guess you’ve never heard of Geoghan the Massachusettes priest sent to prison and eventually killed in prison or Paul Shanely. Cardinal Law wasn’t called to testify in either case but why should he have been. He had no direct evidence. Even the knowledge that the Bishops had was shakey. Paul Shanely never did confess to molesting anyone. Often in these cases, the accused priest will deny the charges but a psych eval reveals an attraction to boys. These evals are confidential and the Bishops aren’t at liberty to share them with the police or anyone else.

The primary witness in any of these cases are the victim or eye witnesses, not the Bishop who learns of this information second and third hand. Therefore, the primary repsonsibility for alerting authorities is the victim or the parents. Shocking I know.

Of course most of these case involved teenage males who didn’t come forward with their allegations for several years. Most of these case involved fondling. What does a Bishop do with an allegation about father Joe grabbing my a** and making sexually suggestive comments 10 years ago. Take your 25 year old victim to CPS? It’s not surprising that the Bishops decided to take the therapy route.

There are some cases where Bishops did cover up. But other Bishops have done the right thing.
Click to expand...
The police are often alerted to suspicious behavior by responsible citizens. That’s how many investigations begin. Some citizens are responsible. Some aren’t.

In para two you are taking my advice. Well done. Highlight the few who have gone to jail even if the bishop didn’t finger them.

I agree the primary witnesses are the victims. So what?

Unfortunately courts are finding that the bishops dealt with far more current information than ten-year-old allegations. They removed priests from one parish and sent them to another when they learned of misconduct.

Which bishops did the right thing? Their story should be told. What did they do?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top